FWIW, I would spray first, with perhaps a short (18 1/2")barrel shotgun loaded with some sequence of slugs/OO buckshot if in serious bear country. Glad to know that a 357 seems to be effective, because that is what I own.

But really, why this emphasis on bear attacks? Falls and drownings kill many more people, year in and year out, and honey bees regularly off more folks than bears, as does faithful Fido. But Death by Bear is spectacular....

FWIW, I would spray first, with perhaps a short (18 1/2")barrel shotgun loaded with some sequence of slugs/OO buckshot if in serious bear country. Glad to know that a 357 seems to be effective, because that is what I own.

But really, why this emphasis on bear attacks? Falls and drownings kill many more people, year in and year out, and honey bees regularly off more folks than bears, as does faithful Fido. But Death by Bear is spectacular....

I'm fairly proficient with handguns but in my limited time in big bear country I've gone with bear spray backed up with a 12 ga shotgun loaded with Brenneke slugs. Bears are pretty fast, not a lot of time for rapid follow up shots. I'm more confident in my ability to place shots accurately with a long gun than a sidearm. Still the bear spray would have been my first line of defense and luckily neither was necessary.

_________________________
“I'd rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” —Richard Feynman

Very misleading title and article. They are attempting to blend two different studies measuring two different things.

1--- Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in AlaskaThe high success rate for bear spray is against bears that were nearby, not necessarily attacking or charging. Most were just curious or looking for food. If you look at the pepper spray success rate for the 9 charging griz attacks in that study, you find only 3 times that it worked. 33% success

2---The firearm study Efficacy of firearms for bear deterrence in Alaska was studying many cases where the bear was already wounded, mostly hunting situations, and they didn't increase their database with other types of incidents. They said-"First, because bear-inflicted injuries are closely covered by the media, we likely did not miss many records where people were injured. Therefore, even if more incidents had been made available through the Alaska DLP database, we anticipate that these would have contributed few, if any, additional human injuries. Second, including more DLP records would have increased the number of bears killed by firearms. Finally, additional records would have likely improved firearm success rates from those reported here, but to what extent is unknown."

Every year i come across wolf, bear or mtn lion where I hike, hunt and camp. Sometimes by myself or with my dog, sometimes with children. I am not going to be drowning or falling or struck by lightning in most places. More likely to twist an ankle or get turned around, but also the possibility of animalproblems too. When I lived in California I prepared for other common dangers, avalanche, wildfire, rockfall, snowstorms, stream crossings etc.

WARNING & DISCLAIMER:
SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted
on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please
review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this
site.